Is it a myth?

My previous posts, especially "Trauma and Renewal," and most of the conversation about the state of higher education assert the common variables of declining enrollment, public skepticism, and lack of meaningful connections between learning and workforce placement/success. The Hill, a publication rated as mostly accurate and non-partisan, carried an article, "Americans Have Lost Faith," by an SMU professor of rhetoric who called for debate as a way to begin to resolve concerns about credibility in higher education.

The Brookings Institute article, "What College affordability debates get wrong" reflects a very different understanding and provides the facts to back its assertions up. These key points include:

• The financial return to a bachelor's degree has not declined, with college graduates earning roughly two to three times as much as high school graduates over most of their careers.
• Inflation-adjusted tuition and net college costs have been largely flat or actually down when adjusted for inflation since the Great Recession, contradicting the widespread belief that prices continue to soar.
• After accounting for tuition and lost earnings, the typical college graduate breaks even by age 26 or 27 and gains more than $1 million over a lifetime.

Reinforcing the Brookings Institute assertions, affordability and workforce training are drivers of increasing enrollment. If educators take Brookings and student trends for reality, then the conversation about the future of higher education might be very different than the "woe is me" conversations surging through most institutions. Supporting Brookings' findings, net cost for attending college has been and continues to decline. Private schools with big endowments are perhaps the biggest bargain for low income students who can pay as little as $5,000 per year to enroll. The return on investment (ROI) question is particularly important even in the face of stable tuition costs. California studied the degree to which graduates of state universities earn more 10 years after graduation, finding that 78% of 4-year and 62% of 2-year colleges had higher earnings that high school graduates. California's research indicated that graduates of institutions in coastal urban settings benefitted more than those in inland areas.

There are institutions that are closing - 14 in 2023, 16 in 2024, and 15 in 2025. Most of the closures are small institutions, both private and public, that could not navigate the combination of reduced enrollment when the cost of operations increased. Evidence of vulnerability is pretty easy to discern, including not meeting enrollment projections, reorganizations, and the smell of fear among Board members. In a surprisingly constructive contribution to the conversation, Education Department Under Secretary Kent encouraged easing rules related to mergers and partnerships.

The Alliance for Higher Education is emerging to draw institutions together to resist the incursion of the Trump administration. The CEO of the group indicates that its purpose is supporting higher education in "making good on its 'democratic promises,'" including "preserving a 'healthy separation' between government and higher education." Institutions are fighting back with "Proud Sponsor" campaigns with tag-lines like "a love letter to the promise of college" and "research saves lives." The "Proud" initiative is a joint institutional effort to "remind Americans of higher ed's impact in bolstering national security, developing the economy and building the workforce." Communications strategies must align with what institutions actually do in order for them to be effect so healthy dialogue between those shaping the student experience and those who market it is a must. Commitment to need-based aid, AI stimulating interest in liberal arts, access for low-income students, and emerging bi-partisan interest in talent development are counter measures that can lift hope in the face of attacks. While differences in conservative and liberal solutions are significant and remain unresolved, an unusual show of bipartisanship resulted in new policies to discourage students from enrolling in programs with low earnings potential.

In addition to counter-narrative work, institutions are initiating new approaches and challenging Trump's attacks. Experimenting at the margins is perhaps the best place to innovate as some institutions are doing with three year programs or incorporating apprenticeships. Colleges staying laser focused on core strengths rather than trying to be everything for everybody is a lesson that can be drawn from Chicago's "foody" scene. Acknowledging "that a substantial portion of professional formation happens elsewhere, with employer partners who become co-educators" is the focus of Kettering University where students rotate among partner assignments that serve as the foundation of their learning. While institutions muddle through the conflicts with law suits to challenge Trump administration actions, the over-riding issue is how to create a more intentional policy and funding strategy to develop talent for the workforce. Statewide initiatives, like those advocated by the Education Strategy Group, will align to the changing world of work resulting in clear return on investment for students, institutions, and the communities they serve.

Using AI to generate ideas about what higher education should do in order to prepare graduates for the workforce and communities of the future resulted in four focus areas. Gemini 3 Thinking proposed metacognitive agility, ethical discernment, empathic leadership, and systems thinking. The question is if higher education has the ability to shift to such encompassing and critical areas when many in the academy are metaphorically focused on how many angels can dance on the tip of a pin.

The Education Department may shift away from higher education in 2026, however, vigilance is the only defense against an erratic administration. The lessons learned from the 2025 chaos are that sloppy initiatives can be effectively challenged by being assertive in public statements and taking governmental overreach to court. Forbes Magazine asserted 6 key areas where the business sector would like to see higher education focus in the coming year. These areas include embracing diversity and distinctiveness, cultivating institutions that are kind and respectful, adopting new technologies, improving graduation success, addressing regional needs and national priorities, and responding to market forces.

The "Do No Harm" initiative led by the Education Department is designed to align accountability for graduates' earnings outcomes with Trump administration priorities. The panel working on guidelines struggled to reach agreement, although the tight timeline and pressure from the Education Department forced a consensus. The Education Department will now publish the results, seek input, and publish the final policies  by July 2026. The model will have the greatest impact on for-profit institutions that offer degrees in work areas with modest earnings potential.

Trump's persistent criticism of accreditation processes and organizations has found a home in the Education Department's new accreditation review committee, set up to take this on in another committee that is likely to mirror the "Do No harm" process. There is a fast timeline, selective participation, and driven by Education Department staff. Not only is revision of accreditation a target but there is intent to open the door to new accrediting organizations. The Under Secretary Kent has been very transparent how accreditation should change including greater accountability for student outcomes and dismantling perceived liberal agendas. Commitment to speed up the process of establishing new accrediting bodies is designed to complete the overhaul while Trump is still President.

Commentary about students' perspective on the value of higher education mainly focuses on what's not working regardless of the fact that Gallup poll results demonstrate students' confidence in the career value of their degrees. An interesting first-hand discussion among students at the University of Minnesota reinforced a balance between career preparation and learning for life. The students on the panel are from families where higher education was assumed and they were enrolled in a course for honors students. These students are very discerning! The return on investment for students of all backgrounds requires balance between preparation for a career as well as discovering purpose that brings value to graduates' lives. Curricular and extracurricular experiences are central to ROI and students should be encouraged to pursue both with impediments removed for those challenged to find the time and resources to do so.

To be sure, uncertainty about the future of higher education is unsettling but enrollment continues to be broadly stable. The myth or reality of the state of higher education is most likely derived from the competing visions of what higher education should do. Responding with a "both/and" strategy may be the key for many institutions. While the Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise Institute believe regaining public trust will come from renewal of conservative views, "Higher ed's own response to the problem, so far, has been to double down on mission" including reasserting "enduring principles" of education. While the debates continue, some institutions are sincerely attempting to recreate themselves but what is critical is for reinvention to address the right problems. If retention/graduation and insufficient focus on career concerns is what drives students and families (e.g. flourishing) in their decisions, rather than ideology as conservatives would have us to believe, then reinvention will be perhaps much more palatable to academics who reject the ideology challenge.

Professional?

Most of those employed in higher education and student affairs work refer to themselves as professionals. And most have prepared by pursuing graduate degrees that include philosophical grounding, a codified body of research and theory, standards, ethics, and of course, advanced education and credentialing. These attributes are often assumed but not articulated as defining what it means to be professional.

The initiative by the Trump administration to define certain fields as professional and excluding others ignores the criteria of what it means to be professional. Instead, the initiative is designed to control who has access to loans to complete higher levels of graduate and professional education. Specifically, students in graduate programs classified as "professional" will have double the access to student loans than those falling outside the definition. The proposed changes are under a 30-day review, which will surely include the assertion that capping loans "will not only limit opportunities for socioeconomic mobility, but also cause workforce shortages in high-demand, high-cost careers such as nursing, physical therapy and audiology as well as high-demand, low-return careers such as social work and education." One critique focused on the training of physician assistants, who due to the intensity of their preparation, cannot work while studying. Inability to seek loan assistance for PA professional training would seriously impact building a critical element of the work force in the health sector.

Doubling down on college and major/career choice, the Education Department classified 23% of U.S. higher educations as "lower earnings" institutions. Warnings of these "lower earnings" colleges will appear as students complete their FAFSA applications. The point being imposed is that graduates of the lower earnings colleges on average earn no more than an adult with a high school diploma. The Education Department is coming after colleges with high student loan delinquency rates, a move that will likely hit campuses with student populations of lower socio-economic levels. These moves quantify going to college exclusively in monetary gain rather than looking at broader quality of life or lifelong benefits.

Attempts to increase the breadth of professional programs may expand. Academic preparation in the health sector is particularly important because of the likely impact of reducing the availability of health care workers. The new rules proposal is up for comment for 30 days and then will become effective July 1, 2026. The new rules include short-term job training lasting at least 14 weeks, lead to a credential or certificate/license, be deemed an in-demand area, count toward subsequent degrees, and include a 70% pass on examination.

Graduate program enrollment changes are under consideration at many campuses. The changes in loan limits, with lower maximum ceilings for those not included as "professional," could reduce overall enrollment as well as result in shifting popularity of programs. Taking the Do No Harm legislation to another level, Indiana proposed eliminating low-earning programs altogether and the Governor signed it into law.

While the issue of cost of graduate preparation is important, it will be interesting to see if assertions about what is professional will include conversation about what is required of those who have worked hard to obtain degrees and who adhere to professional standards that improve the quality and outcome of their work. The Trump administration is full of appointees whose backgrounds and expertise may not conform to common professional standards. Is that perhaps a contributing factor to their defining "professional" based on what financial assistance is available rather than to the competence they bring to their work?

Trauma and renewal?

My career-long and post-working observations of higher education have left me with lingering questions of how higher education should respond to the trauma of falling enrollment, declining budgets, public skepticism, and attacks by Trump administration leaders. Secretary McMahon ia downsizing the Education Department, moving functions to the Labor Department, which are part of an incremental closure of Education. Meanwhile, officials either decry the carnage or scramble to find a way to preserve essential commitments without the Department's infrastuctural help. Questions of how diversity of enrollment can be supported if realigned in the Department of Labor or how educationally purposeful international education can be maintained in the Department of State are vexing to say the least. Educators who are invested in these issues will no doubt strive to hold the ground of their values and commitments.

Rachel Toor, Inside Higher Education contributor and co-founder of The Sandbox, asked the central question in her recent essay "Is Higher Ed Broken?" Relying on observation from professional conferences, campus visits, and conversations with college presidents, Toor explains that change is resisted from above (oversight Boards) and below (mid-management, faculty, and staff). She describes the dilemma of all the in-between in saying, "Meanwhile, most of us are stuck in the messy middle, trying to do everything everywhere all at once. Research, workforce training, student life, athletics, DEI, study abroad, mental health - missions layered like geological strata. The result? Silos, identity crisis, bloat and burnout." The shrinking pipeline for students coupled with uncertainty over funding resulted in Fitch's rating of the higher education sector as deteriorating.

Trump has advocated and incrementally implemented a "Shut it down" strategy for the Education Department. His demonizing of education in general has accelerated concerns about whether or not pursuing higher education has sufficient return on investment to justify the effort and money. While there have been herculean efforts to respond to the barrage of policies and administrative changes, the dizzying pace has been exhausting for most higher education leaders. Secretary McMahon defended changing assignment of its responsibilities to other federal agencies as experimental, which could be confirmed by legislative sanction at a later date. Trump claims that moving Education Department functions makes way for states to take more responsibility while McMahon claims that the federal funding shutdown confirmed that ED is irrelevant.

The Project 2025 playbook called for state control of education and a new Heritage Foundation report supports increasing executive power to make it possible. Dismantling the Education Department isn't new to the GOP, which routinely results in resistance such as Senator Warren's push to investigate what is happening. It's important to remember that the plan to shut it down was all in the Project 2025 plan of the Heritage Foundation. The irony is that the Education Department began calling civil rights workers back to work in December, 2025, indicating that the case load demands restoring staff capacity. The changes in the Education Department goes far beyond civil rights enforcement and, instead of supporting world-class education, has devolved into bureaucratic chaos.

Targeted funding provided through the Education Department's Fund for the Improvement of Post-Secondary Education rolled out in early 2026. The 70 organizations were given $169 million to pursue projects aligned with Trump priorities which included alternative accreditation, civil discourse, workforce preparation, and AI.  In addition to Education directing funds to areas privileged by Trump's ideology, NEH (National Endowment for the Humanities) poured $75.1 million into conservative efforts such as Western civilization and great books initiatives. Both Congress and Courts have countered Trump's attempts to cap administrative indirect costs in research grants. In addition, the funding proposal coming out of Congress would limit Trump's hostile intervention.

Trump's declining popularity and the looming mid-term elections suggest that plans for other major GOP reforms may be running out of time. As an example,  the Congressional Appropriations Committee opposed Trump by proposing to increase NIH funding and maintaining the Education Department. Unfortunately, lack of leadership at NIH is likely to inhibit restoration of funding. The focus on cost and return on investment is likely to remain as a central theme of reforms along with a stronger focus on accreditation. Redefining the metrics of accountability may be driven by return on investment questions. One of the GOP policy proposals will require institutions to document that their graduates earn more than employed high school graduates.

Reflections on Trump's first year back include a combination of feelings of chaos, despair, and fear. Even if the House of Representatives returns to a Democratic majority in 2027, the damage already done will take at least 10 years if not more. Although some of the worst appropriations cuts were restored by law suits and court decisions, the impact has been substantial - monetarily and psychologically. The most dramatic impact of Trump's Big Beautiful Bill is the possible rise of "un-college" numbers among youth. Moving into Trump's second year, lawyers and education leaders are being called to stand up to the Trump administration attacks. Coalition building and solidarity will be essential in the coming days as are the numerous law suits to stop Trump's arbitrary and unlawful actions.

The Kennedy Center has been a mainstay for numerous arts organizations in D.C. Higher education institutions in the area are mobilizing to provide alternative "homes." Trump's renovation, cover for the fact that most of the quality programming cancelled after his take-over, resulted in loss of rehearsal and program space which will now be accommodated on campuses. The interesting twist is that in higher education venues, these organizations can continue to thrive with artistic freedom.

It is unlikely that Rachel Toor's insights will raise sufficient awareness to bring change but the major point she makes is that the middle of the higher education industry have to mobilize to address systemic issues that most are reluctant to face. Especially when it comes to faculty, flexible hours and negligible accountability are privileges that are difficult to uproot. Robert Reich's book, Coming Up Short, ends with a poignant description of the joys of faculty life. As I suggest in this review, with the privileges of faculty life comes the responsibility of legacy - something that shows you gave your best effort in your life's work. And the best effort now has to include saving our higher education institutions, small and large, public and private, struggling or privileged.

Vulnerability comes in multiple forms with research preeminence and fiscal stability being two important factors. In relation to research, concerns over U.S. national security resulted in less international collaboration that resulted in China's rise in research productivity. In fiscal health, credit ratings for higher education institutions project a challenging future fueled by federal grant cuts and slowing support in state funding. Specifically, Fitch reported that "'the value proposition for a higher education degree' amid declining job-placement rates and rising concerns about affordability" will lead to "consolidation across the sector, from mergers and closures to restructuring and more." Managing these vulnerabilities will be key to institutional survival and hopefully renewal.

How institutions measure their research productivity is often based on the number of publications that make it into top tier journals and the resulting number of citations specific works or authors attract. Social scientists raised questions if the more important measure of research is its impact in policy. Most faculty profess that they are more interested in the impact of their work but reward systems on campus rely more on the metrics. The president of global publishing at Sage commented, "we have to challenge the status quo of what matters in higher education - for example, by moving beyond an overemphasis on scholarly impact measures [and] toward recognizing research that benefits people through policy, practice, and public life."

Accreditation has been the higher education's sector way of determining institutional quality. The convening of the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI), and election of a chair with Heritage Foundation links, is likely to result in significant reform and the addition of new accrediting groups. The focus of NACIQI is to eliminate "discriminatory practices, mandatory DEI requirements, racial preferences in hiring, compulsory sensitivity training and political litmus tests," all of which will be central to the Education Department's doubling down on DEI. The CEO of FIRE (the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression) owned the "hard truth" that attacks on liberal bias in higher education has contributed to repression of all types of speech. Domonique K. Baker wrote for Inside Higher Education that the censorship on campus of today resembles the days of McCarthyism.

Student affairs staff have experienced intensified trauma as a result of the roles they play outside of class, and particularly related to values of wholistic learning and as advocates for diversity in learning. As reflected in this panel, trauma has caused some to move to adjacent roles to higher education institutions. The most important take-away of the panel is the need for student affairs staff to recognize, and strategize ways to avoid, the stress that may undermine their willingness to stay the course during this difficult time.

I bemoan the loss of higher education as I experienced it during my working career. However, in order to survive the trauma of what is underway, faculty, student affairs and other staff, will all have to consider models that will renew and protect the commitments of enriched and deeper learning, preparation for engaged citizenship, and resilience in an ever-changing world of work. And the number of our institutions will decline, look different, and abandon privileges that are no longer fiscally feasible.

2026-27 Enrollment Predictions

Higher education enrollment for 2025-26 increased to pre-pandemic levels with a 1% increase over the numbers in 2019. The data on enrollment for 2026-27 demonstrated that student confidence in pursuing college degrees was stable, regardless of demographic, economic, and AI challenges. Adult and international student enrollment was softer than other other demographic groups. While 1% is unlikely to move the needle for most institutions, competition for admission continues; rejection is humorously hypothesized in this AI generated rejection letter.

Common Apps show increases from underrepresented groups and a decline of international applications. Selective institutions are experiencing the smallest increases. "International students applying dropped 9 percent compared to this point last year, driven by a 14 percent drop in applicants from India." The erratic policies and pronouncements of the Trump administration have created uncertainty that international students must consider when they apply to study abroad. The Trump administration's revocation of 8,000 current international study visas and freezing visas from 74 countries by the Statement Department is one factor contributing to ambivalence. Another factor is that students knew, and evidence reveals, that the Department of Homeland Security deliberately targeted students for their political perspectives, especially those who expressed pro-Palestinian views. The 2025 international student visas dropped 35.6%, which is a clear indication of prospects' concerns. Analysis of the F-1 denials revealed a patterned rejection of countries by the Trump administration, with the highest applicant denials being from African continent, Middle East, and South Asia.

Institutions that want to increase international enrollment have turned to creative strategies to cultivate prospects, including new markets, expanding online pathways, and growing international partnerships in-country that will allow international students to obtain degrees from U.S. institutions while remaining secure in their home country. The unfortunate part of this is that distance degrees do not offer the wholistic experience that has a trademark of U.S. higher education.

Canada is sticking with its cap on international students which resulted in a 90% decline. Because Canada was previously an attractive options for international students, the U.S. could potentially benefit. Graduate schools in the U.S. are rushing to pursue strategies that will reassure applicants by streamlining processes and improved technology.

Universities are adapting to international enrollment challenges by recruiting students in new markets, expanding online pathways, and growing their collaborations and partnerships with other universities. Direct application also appealed to students from diverse backgrounds or 1st generation entry. The schools that benefit most by offering admission without application are private and health professions are a favorite. The states where larger numbers of students take direct admission offers include California, Pennsylvania, and Texas. The irony is that the pursuit of students from diverse backgrounds is often only a replication of affluent student and high resourced institution models. Based on evidence from Chicago Public Schools college access efforts, "developing students' critical consciousness about the systems shaping their lives, not just their ability to navigate those systems" has to be a central focus.

The irony of the decline in enrollment at non-selective and community colleges is that they are lower cost and they are typically not subject to the political scrutiny that more prominent and elite colleges face. If cost and public perception are so important, how is it that some data show relative stability in the ranks of more expensive and selective institutions? Cost transparency is important and it should be coupled with the growing realization among students and families that increased return on investment comes when students attend more visible and elite colleges. Having suffered precipitous decline over the last several years, two-thirds of Americans say that attending college is not "worth the cost because people often graduate without specific job sklls and with a large amount of debt to pay off."

To even the competition, institutions could expand the return on investment from improving just economic opportunity to ongoing financial support while in college, belonging, and ultimately to employment opportunity. Oh, and by the way, offering paid internship opportunities might be a big draw because it enriches students' experience while contributing to covering the cost of attendance. Paid internships can also help reduce regional brain drain as demonstrated the Virginia Economic Development Partnerships.

The Trump administration advocated "merit" as the central criteria that colleges should consider in reviewing applications. However, how an institution defines merit varies. Merit has been a consideration for over a century and has often been applied through the lens of holistic review, which factors in variables outside an applicants test scores and grade point average. Athletic prowess is one of the more interesting merit qualities that goes unchallenged, except in Ohio and Idaho where international students may become ineligible for scholarships. The question remains if Trump's view of merit will only focus on the data rather than holistic review of attributes that create a good learning community.

Dr. Julie Park's new book, Race, Class, and Affirmative Action, urges recruitment and admissions strategies that continue to yield diverse and vibrant learning communities. She argues that the 2023 Students for Fair Admission case that challenged affirmative action still allows room for institutions to "continue promoting racial diversity in their admissions processes."

Resisting the Trump Compact - What happened?

Growing competition for international talent

The "Big 4" destinations for international students used to be pretty definitive - United States, United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada. The number is expanding and now includes 14 different countries and Canada may be slipping faster than the other 3 of the big 4. Affordability is a key issue, especially among Chinese students who are looking for educational opportunity as China's economy and job opportunity for young people declines. Other important factors include "linguistic familiarity, geographical proximity and - arguably - better employment and internship opportunities."

Eight-five percent of U.S. educators blame the decline in U.S. international enrollment on Trump administration visa restrictions and government regulations. International prospects of various cultural backgrounds have to consider the likelihood of mistreatment, especially those from countries across the African continent. While U.S. enrollment struggles the international numbers are up in Asia and Europe, visas for 8,000 current international students in the U.S.A. were revoked and the State Department announced freezes in visas from 75 countries.

Chinese students fueled graduate program enrollment in particular, which underwrote and supported domestic graduate students at U.S. institutions. The Chinese enrollment "grew from around 62,000 to over 317,000" from 2005 to 2019. Congress' scrutiny of Chinese graduate student enrollment threatened grad programs at Stanford, Carnegie Mellon, and others and Purdue may have withdrawn offers as a preemptive step to avoid further investigation. As of 2025, more Chinese students studied in countries outside the "Big 4" than any of their individual enrollments. If the international higher education espoused purpose was to increase access, competition from Asia and the Middle East is an indication that it worked. In numerous cases the founders of new institutions that are now competing with the "Big 4" were educated in U.S. institutions. They went back to their home countries as founders of new institutions and educational partnerships.

Looking at reverse educational migration, China has welcomed international students from other countries to its institutions. However, a recent move to require test submissions to secure admission is a move to increase quality, which may result in those students seeking enrollment in countries beyond China.

For those committed to wholistic education and student affairs programs, the challenge is that sometimes internationals who studied in the U.S. didn't actually engage fully. Out of class engagement in U.S. institutions varies greatly by students' country origin and campus environment, an issue seldom addressed through intentional initiatives. Roberts & Ammigan (2014) assembled expert authors who contributed chapters advising education leaders on how to do a better job and perhaps it's time to take a deeper dive into how international students experience their days in the U.S. A brief introduction to Supporting International Students in U.S. Higher Education introduces this theory and practice informed resource.

The current decrease in undergraduate and graduate international students, largely fueled by uncertainties inflicted by the Trump administration, extends into next year with 2026-27 Common Apps down. While higher education leaders are pushing for higher education to be exempt from the new $100,000 H1-B visas, states such as Florida are considering eliminating them and paused issuance for a year to study the issue. By March 2026 the Florida Board banned all H1-B visas, Texas paused approval of H1-B visas across all state institutions, and Iowa advanced a bill to eliminate H1-B visas in hiring faculty from targeted countries. H1-B visas are highly valued by prospects for post-graduate training for international students. More broadly, hostile immigration policies and enforcement are creating uncertainty among all international students and currently enrolled students fear for their safety under Trump administration actions. Fortunately, an immigration judge in Boston ended the deportation process for a Tufts graduate student targeted for her pro-Palestinian views. The threat and intimidation still remains, even when courts intervene.

The H1-B restrictions don't only impact students' considerations to apply to U.S. institutions but are hurting institutions as they seek to hire the best possible faculty. Imposing H1-B restrictions are a violation of academic freedom because they prohibit consideration of scholars solely based on passport. Perhaps more importantly, international scholars can bring unique and innovative ideas to the institutions they serve.

In a bizarre reversal of sentiment, Trump declared on Fox news that higher education should continue enrolling international students. His rationale - the financial gain they bring to budgets - nothing about the quality of the learning environment or knowledge diplomacy! Trump's changing stance, including additional restrictions for international travelers and contradiction of his appointees, cause international applicants to wonder where the US stands. Two thousand mathematicians signed a protest of meeting in the U.S., demonstrating fear of ICE detentions and other hostile experiences. The sad reality is that international students deserve to be treated as more than an financial commodity. Of particular note are J-1 and OPT visas, which are a highly valued for international students that granting of which can be unpredictable or exploitive.

Are students flourishing?

There is not much question that higher education is experiencing a shake up in enrollment. My previous blog post on 2025-26 enrollment provides background with some ups and lots of downs for this year and years to come. The negativity that Trump and his appointees, particularly in the Education Department, have fostered has undermined confidence in U.S. higher education. However, most of the evidence is that students are still interested in pursuing degrees but the perceived return on investment varies by state and many other factors. Workforce placement of college graduates has declined but their salaries continued to be higher than non-college graduates. Morphing academic programs to future employment potential could help reverse the placement challenges. An example is academic programs at Syracuse and elsewhere designed to cultivate social "influencer" capacity. Although not clearly understood, the motivation to complete a degree is a combination of preparing for future work and the rest is about quality of life. The appeal for international students may be a bit more complex, primarily due to erratic changes in visa policies unfolding every day of the Trump administration.

Even when the waters are rough, higher education faculty and staff know that they have to maintain focus on what's important - retention and graduation. I've been a fan of instruments such as the HERI First-Year Survey and the National Survey of Student Engagement. Having used both extensively to determine students' patterns of engagement, satisfaction, and achievement of goals, they provide longitudinal and comparative data that is extremely useful in determining how to improve students' experience. The Generation Lab findings show that most students at U.S. campuses believe they are valued and supported, which is key to satisfaction and retention. Unfortunately, the Student Voice Survey found that about a third of students are disengaged outside of class. This research helped by determining the motivations for student involvement and what approaches are attractive to them. Students of diverse cultural and first-generation backgrounds often feel less valued and included, which should be addressed from a strength and resilience lens rather than as a deficit.

While HERI, NSSE, and Student Voice are useful and results allow educators to look back and plan forward, the administration and results are from a time and place that is static. The University of Arizona created the New Student Information Form (NSIF) that allows staff "to respond to individuals' needs and create strategic initiatives within various departments and offices that ensure no student is left behind." Having access to "in the moment" information can then be used to target individual students or groups. The first 6 weeks at college are particularly important as students establish patterns of engagement, apathy, or disillusionment. Concerns such as affordability, making friends, getting a job, and navigating difficult political dynamics often trouble students. In general, each of these surveys support a "steady as she goes" focus for student affairs work.

Northwestern's PATH program tackles student stress in a combination of on-line learning and small groups. institutions are pushing even harder by creating incentives for student involvement. The University of North Carolina's "Hello Heels" app drives student engagement. Lynn University and University of Kentucky provide financial rewards, recognizing that student involvement is often undermined by students' need to work. The UVA Career Design initiative incorporates career decision making into the curriculum as a way to ensure resilience in graduates' futures.

Concerns about post-study work and living may also need more attention. Current economic and employment trends are adding to student anxiety as they plan to exit higher education. Especially in the face of criticism about college expense, the transition and successful launch to work and living could become a distinguishing characteristic of high performing institutions. Telling the story of student success is key with the National Museum of African American History and Culture "At the Vanguard" exhibit serving as a great example. A recent surveys indicated that job candidates who have completed college degrees are preferred.

Considering predictions that employment opportunities are and will continue to shift dramatically, fostering flexibility and adaptability in graduates is a must. An incredible long-term benefit could also include life-time professional education that would help graduates retool for changing sector demands. Ray Schroeder advocates that graduates should be helped to navigate the changes "wrought by the fourth industrial revolution."

Beyond these practical measures of participation and needs, another issue that is critical to study is if students are developing in ways that allow them to flourish. Are they developing in ways that will foster the good life that so many hope for as an outcome of the college experience? Harvard University has been studying flourishing and created the Flourishing survey that will be available for broader institutional use in the Spring of 2026. Part of the Human Flourishing Program, the higher education survey will be used to help institutions determine how and where to focus efforts to foster flourishing as a lifestyle commitment and as a quantifiable outcome of attending college.

Joy, well-being, and happiness are often associated with flourishing and eudaemonia. It doesn't really matter what words we use. The bottom line is that there isn't much question that striving to do something difficulty but achievable, thereby reaching a condition of flow, is what most of those who aspire to flourishing are describing. One of higher educations' most valuable contributions to advancing the human condition might be to prepare graduates for a future that is constantly in turmoil, a state of entropy that disrupts former political and economic conventions. Recognizing and welcoming the turmoil offers the opportunity to make a difference in work and community with the full realization that we and many of our systems are imperfect.

Alignment of Islam and Dewey

As a result of my experience serving Qatar Foundation from 2007-14, I have often referenced my belief that the culture of the Middle East and Islam provide for extraordinary alignment with student affairs purpose and goals. Abdul Hafidz Zaid's "The essence of education in the perspective of John Dewey" is a compelling confirmation of my beliefs.

While Zaid's essay does not mention student affairs as a field, the elements of Dewey's philosophy that he cites are straight out of the "Student Personnel Point of View" (ACE, 1937). Zaid provides extraordinary support for education that honors experience, is holistic, and affirms all learners.

Higher education personnel, whether in academic or student affairs, will do well to reference Dewey's importance historically. In addition, Dewey's advice can draw institutions and faculty/staff together in some of the most important commitments any higher education organization can pursue.

The major impediment to drawing faculty and staff together is the competitive isolation that has emerged in Western higher education over the last 100 years. In some ways the hierarchical nature of our institutions seemed to make sense in the context of the Industrial Revolution's focus on productivity and quality. The problem is that applying these concepts led to increasingly complicated, large, and impersonal environments.

I recently blogged on two concepts that might offer an alternative to our current organization challenges. My longer post on Generous Leadership introduces the ideas of generosity and authentizotic culture, ideas that may help to improve academic environments. Take the link to look more deeply into these ideas.

Charlie Kirk's assassination controversy

No humane or reasonable human being would want another's life taken. The assassination of Charlie Kirk on the campus of Utah Valley University has been deplored by the vast majority of conservatives and liberals alike. Yet, the way that condemnation has been communicated has created a tidal wave of statements and calls for civility across higher education. The problem was that Kirk's appearances on college campuses, having become the central voice for conservative youth, were often riddled with comments that offended or ridiculed others. When reference is made to his conservative youth platform statements, accusations of insensitivity quickly follow.

A central point of criticism is that U.S. higher education created a hostile space for conservative voices, thus setting off the dynamics that resulted in Kirk's death. The accusations flying from conservative to liberal and vice versa include violation of free speech rights on both sides. The self and declaratory censorship of media as well as firing of faculty and staff on numerous campuses is an authoritarian's dream - closing down communication on a topic deeply harmful to so many students, faculty, and staff across a wide political spectrum. Most fundamentally, to silence distasteful dissent about Kirk is a dangerous abridgment of the First-Amendment.

To say the least, Charlie Kirk was controversial primarily because of how he was portrayed. His portrayal, if not a real persona, caused liberals to condemn his speech and perspective. However, conservatives have said that he advocated dialogue between conservative and liberal advocates. Van Jones, frequent CNN commentator, confirmed Kirk's advocacy for dialogue at least in Jones' specific case. The linked article is from the Conservative Brief and it is notable that Jones' report of Kirk reaching out to him has been reported across all media.

While conservatives portray Charlie Kirk as a champion of free speech, others say that his approach demonstrated discourse outside the bounds of civility. The "Prove me wrong" format he used on college campuses was more like a trap to ultimately lead to a previously determined desired outcome. Critics portray the strategy as victimizing impressionable young adults who naively walked into "debates" on rehearsed topics that were conservative talking points. For those who believe in critical discourse or any type of real debate, "Prove me wrong" is anything but. As Cory Nichols' FACEBOOK post proposes, "his certainty was performative rather than earned, and his victories were manufactured rather than genuine."

Grief over Charlie Kirk's death fueled a surge in Turning Point new members. Advocacy for free speech is part of the impetus for the increased interests but, due to the way Kirk approached it, educators fear what may unfold. In the face of embattled views of the limits and conditions of free speech, education leaders warn against restricting any speakers on campus.

The Education Department's launch of grants to fund "Patriotic Education" appears to be another way to erase lived history in favor of a narrative of nobility. The proposal is to add elements of patriotism to various education grant processes that present "the history of America grounded in an accurate, honest, unifying, inspiring, and ennobling characterization of the American founding and foundational principles" and how "the United States has admirably grown closer to its noble principles through its history."

A Turning Point USA event at UC Berkeley drew protesters. Arrests and a DOJ investigation followed. Such events and the government's response may take place elsewhere, forcing campus administrators to choose between free expression versus being placed in the spotlight of the government. The DEI Director at UCLA was fired for comments after Kirk's death, joining others throughout higher education punished for speaking out.

Secretary of Education McMahon characterized those who celebrated Kirk's death as a fringe population. New College in Florida proposed a statue of Kirk as a testament to his legacy. Visa status of those who make light of Kirk's assassination are being threatened by the State Department. Academics in the U.S. (Arkansas) and the U.K. have been disciplined for statements they made about Kirk. More actions are sure to unfold as the fires of conflict are fanned - I will continue to update this post to reflect them.

Months after Kirk's killing, the commencement speaker for Utah Valley University was cancelled as a result of criticism of Kirk. The cancellation came as a result of Turning Point USA protest.